A staffer’s short-lived promotion on the House Foreign Affairs Committee turned heads Wednesday, drawing scrutiny over his past lobbying for DJI, the Chinese drone manufacturer sanctioned by the U.S. government. The controversy reflects the broader concerns in Washington over Chinese firms with alleged ties to Beijing’s military and intelligence networks.
Concerns Over Chinese Corporate Influence
Washington has intensified scrutiny of Chinese companies in recent years, citing risks linked to national security and espionage. The U.S. government has repeatedly expressed concerns about how Beijing can compel Chinese firms to disclose sensitive data on demand.
DJI, the world’s largest drone maker, has been in Washington’s crosshairs for some time. The Department of Defense designated it a “Chinese military company,” placing it alongside tech giants like Huawei and Tencent. The designation aims to restrict its operations and influence in the U.S. DJI, however, has pushed back, suing the Pentagon in October, arguing that it is neither owned nor controlled by China’s military and does not manufacture military-grade products.
A Promotion That Didn’t Last
Mark Aitken, the staffer at the center of the controversy, briefly announced his new role as staff director of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific on Wednesday. His LinkedIn post, which was soon deleted, celebrated the promotion, but it quickly set off alarm bells among China watchers and policymakers.
Aitken’s past work includes a stint as vice president for public affairs at Shein, a fast-fashion giant accused of labor rights violations, including the use of forced labor in its supply chain. However, it was his lobbying work for DJI that drew the most backlash.
According to Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act records, Aitken helped generate over $2.8 million for DJI from April 2020 to July 2021. This raised concerns about whether his appointment could influence U.S. policy in ways that benefit the drone maker.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Responds
The backlash was swift. A spokesperson for the House Foreign Affairs Committee told Politico that Aitken “no longer works for the committee,” adding that the matter was “confidential personnel business.” While the details of his departure remain unclear, the incident has fueled broader discussions about the risks of hiring individuals with prior affiliations to companies tied to foreign adversaries.
- DJI has been on Washington’s radar for years, facing restrictions and allegations of aiding Beijing’s surveillance efforts.
- Aitken’s lobbying for DJI before his brief committee role raised national security concerns.
- The House Foreign Affairs Committee moved quickly, stating that Aitken was no longer employed there.
The U.S. Crackdown on DJI
The U.S. Treasury Department blacklisted DJI in 2021, barring Americans from buying or selling its securities. Officials accused the company of aiding China’s mass surveillance program, particularly in the repression of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. However, because DJI is not publicly traded, the move was largely symbolic.
DJI’s technology has also been widely used in conflicts, including by both Russian and Ukrainian forces. In response, DJI claimed it opposes military applications and halted drone sales to both countries following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Washington’s scrutiny of DJI intensified last year when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The law gives DJI one year to prove that its products do not pose a national security risk. If the company fails to do so, its drones will face an outright ban in the U.S.
Industry Reactions and Public Debate
Experts and analysts have weighed in on the controversy, with many voicing concerns about the implications of hiring individuals with ties to Chinese firms.
Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, warned that such hires pose a security risk. “Members of Congress have rightly sought to prohibit the use of DJI drones at the federal and state level. Hiring former DJI staffers into positions of influence isn’t in America’s national security interest,” he told Newsweek.
Others, however, have questioned whether banning former employees of Chinese firms from U.S. government service is fair or feasible. Gabriel Wildau, a managing director specializing in China political risk at consulting firm Teneo, wrote on X: “What’s the underlying principle here? Should anyone who ever worked for a Chinese company be barred from U.S. government service? Tencent is also a military company according to that list.”
What Happens Next?
With the NDAA’s provisions in place, DJI has a limited window to make its case. If the company fails to convince lawmakers that its drones do not pose a national security risk, they will be banned in the U.S. The outcome of this review could have ripple effects across other Chinese firms facing scrutiny from Washington.
Meanwhile, the Aitken controversy has reignited debates about whether the U.S. government should impose stricter hiring restrictions on individuals with past ties to foreign adversary-linked firms. Given the political sensitivity surrounding U.S.-China relations, more scrutiny on such appointments is likely in the future.
